CON Law Exam 1

Baker v. Carr

Tennessee voters challenged a legislative reapportionment statute that had not been updated for 60 years despite massive population shifts. Rural districts held vastly disproportionate voting power compared to urban districts. Plaintiff asserted a violation of equal protection

The court did not decide that Tennessee districts were actually unconstitutional. Sent back to lower courts for further preceding.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Mainly about standing (who has the right to bring a case to federal court)

Congress passes law that they have to think about endangered species when they do something

Defenders of Wildlife: environmental group, challenged a federal government rule that allowed certain federally funded projects outside the U.S. to potentially harm endangered species.

*The majority said they did not have standing because they had not shown a sufficiently concrete and imminent injury. Saying they might return someday to see the animals wasn't specific enough.

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury sued for his Commission

Establishes judicial review over federal acts

Vested right to his commission but the way he got the case to the supreme court through the writ of mandamus under section 13 of the Judiciary act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it attempted to expand the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction beyond the explicit limits of article 3 section 2

Martin v. Hunters Lessee

Virginia took land from a British loyalist during the war under state law and granted it to Hunter

Virginia court refused to obey the Supreme courts ruling that Martin was entitled to the land by saying that the Supreme court lacked appellate jurisdiction over state sovereign courts

Story held article 3 grant appellate jurisdiction to the federal judicial power in all cases arising under law and equity (federal law) regardless of the court in which the case originates.

Supremacy clause: supreme court must possess final appellate authority over state court judgements touching federal questions

Completes framework of judicial review by extending federal judicial supremacy to state supreme courts

U.S. Term limits v. Thornton

Arkansas voters adopted an amendment to state constitution prohibiting people’s name to appear on the ballet for congress who had served 3 years in U.S. House or 2 years in the U.S. Senate

Court: Article 1 sets limits. If they allow states to alter qualification it would violate the fundamental constitutional principle of a unified national legislature chosen directly by the soverign people of the United States

Reaffirms that federal representatives derive authority from the national citizens not individual state legislatures

Trump v. Mazars

3 House committees issued subpoenas to accounting firm Mazars USA and financial institutions seeking private financial record of President Trump, his family, and business entities to inform legislation regarding ethics and banking reform

Separation of power problems

Sent back to lower courts to apply 4 principles set by supreme court

McCulloch v. Maryland

Is bank constitutional? and if so can Maryland tax the bank? Yes and No

Justice Marshall: incorporating a bank was a legitimate implied means to execute enumerated powers. Power to tax= power to destroy state taxation of a federal entity violated the supremacy clause

Shelby county AL v. Holder

Section 5 of Voting Rights Act of 1965 required covered state and local jurisdictions to obtain federal pre-clearance before altering voting laws. Section 4b established a coverage formula based on voter turnover and tests used many years ago. Shelby county challenged these things as unconstitutional intrusions on state sovereignty

Court: section 4b was unconstitutional because it relied on decades old data that failed to reflect modern voting conditions. Congress violated fundamental principle of equal state sovereignty by imposing exceptional federal burdens on specific states using old data

In re Neagle

Justice Stephen Field had been threatened by David Terry. President Harrison had U.S. Marshal David Neagle assigned to protect Field. Terry approached Field and attacked him. Neagle shot and killed Terry. Neagle was arrested by California and charged with murder. Neagle argued he was acting under federal authority.

The BIG issue: Could the president authorize Neagle to protect Justice Field even though Congress had not specifically passed a law saying he could do so? Supreme Court's answer- YES

The Court said the president had authority because of his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute federal law.

The federal government had an interest in protecting a federal judge who was performing his official duties.

Article II, Section 3 — Take Care Clause: The president must: "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

What Neagle tells you about presidential power: The president has implied executive powers in addition to the powers specifically listed in the Constitution.

Clinton v. City of New York

Congress passed the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996.

It allowed the president to cancel certain: spending provisions, tax benefits after a bill had already been passed by Congress and signed into law.

President Clinton used the power to cancel provisions of two laws.The affected parties challenged the cancellations.

Can the president cancel individual parts of a law after signing the law? Court's answer- NO

The Court held that the Line-Item Veto Act violated the Presentment Clause.

Why? The Constitution gives the president the choice to:

Sign the bill → it becomes law

Veto the bill → sends it back to Congress

But the president cannot: Sign the bill → wait until it becomes law → cancel individual parts of it. That would allow the president to effectively amend or repeal a law, which is part of the legislative process.

Article I, Section 7 — Presentment Clause: This establishes the process for bills becoming laws.

United States v. Nixon

concerned whether President Nixon could withhold recordings needed for a criminal trial.

Nixon refused, claiming executive privilege—protection for confidential presidential communications.

Executive privilege exists, but it is not absolute. A general confidentiality claim must yield to a demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a criminal trial

Nixon asserted general confidentiality rather than military or diplomatic secrecy. The Court balanced presidential privacy against fair criminal proceedings and found the need for evidence stronger. Separation of powers did not prevent judicial review.

Nixon had to deliver the materials to the district court for private judicial review to identify relevant, admissible evidence

Trump v. United States

concerned a former president’s immunity from criminal prosecution.

Court recognized immunity for certain presidential actions and returned the case to the lower courts.

Trump faced federal charges concerning alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He claimed presidential immunity. The district court and appeals court rejected his immunity claim.

Type of action	Protection
Core, exclusive constitutional powers	Absolute immunity.
Other official acts	Presumptive immunity, which the government may overcome.
Unofficial or private acts	No presidential immunity.

The majority reasoned that fear of later prosecution could interfere with presidential decision-making. Lower courts needed to distinguish official from unofficial conduct

Morrison v. Olson

concerned the constitutionality of an independent prosecutor investigating executive officials.

Alexia Morrison was appointed independent counsel to investigate whether Justice Department official Theodore Olson gave false congressional testimony. Olson challenged the law authorizing her office

The Appointments Clause permits Congress to authorize courts to appoint inferior officers. Removal restrictions are permissible when they do not unduly interfere with presidential duties.

Morrison was an inferior officer because her duties, jurisdiction, and tenure were limited, and the attorney general could remove her for good cause. The majority found that the executive retained sufficient control.

Justice Scalia dissented: criminal prosecution is executive power and should remain under presidential control.

The Court upheld the independent counsel provisions and reversed the appeals court’s contrary decision.

Trump v. Slaughter

concerned the president’s power to fire Federal Trade Commission commissioners.

Trump fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without citing a statutory reason: inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct. Slaughter sued, and the district court ruled her removal unlawful under Humphrey’s Executor.

Could Congress restrict the president’s authority to remove FTC commissioners?

Under Article II’s Vesting Clause and Take Care Clause, officials exercising executive power must remain accountable to the president through removal.

The majority found that the FTC exercises substantial executive power through regulation and enforcement. Its removal protections therefore unconstitutionally limited presidential control.

Court invalidated the FTC’s removal protections, overruled Humphrey’s Executor, and reversed and remanded. The president can remove FTC commissioners without establishing statutory cause.

Appellate

Appellee

Reasoning Forward

Staying neutral using logic and reasoning to reach a conclusion

Ex. Judge figuring out a case and who should lawfully win

Reasoning backward

Having an end goal in mind and finding ways to reach that goal

Ex. Lawyer representing a client on one side of the case to try to win

Structure of opinion

Opening statements

Facts

Legal provision (Rule)

Reasoning (analysis)

Conclusion

Agenda setting

How do cases get to supreme court?

Decision making

What is the process of making decisions?

Goal of Supreme court decision making

Majority v. Plurality Decisions

Original Review (original jurisdiction) few cases

cases go straight to supreme court, they are the first to hear this case

Writ of cert (almost all cases)

discretionary docket of court: petition to have your case heard

means to be informed- you are asking supreme court to be informed of your case

Goal of supreme court decision making

a majority of judges (typically 5) agree to a single written opinion

Majority opinion: announces who a majority believes should win (disposition) and why a majority thinks they should win (legal rule)

only majority decisions make precedent

Judgement of the court: announces who majority believes should win (disposition) but disagrees on why they should win (i.e. concurring opinion)

Judgement resolve case but do NOT make precedent

Originalism

Living Constitution

Attitudinal model of decision making

Judicial restraint

Jurisdiction

Justiciability

Article 1 of Constition

Article 2 of Constition

Article 3 of Constitution

Standing

appropriate party brings a lawsuit

Political questions

Judiciary Act of 1789

Inherent powers

Amendment enforcing powers

Federal government vs. State government

Voting rights act of 1965

Executive authority and limitations

Federal executive branch

Presidential Management of the Bureaucracy

Administrative Laws